RELATIVES: OPEN COORDINATION 95

functions, and things of different forms may have the same
function. If we say * Unambitious men, and who have no
experience', 'unambitious' and 'who have no experience' are
not in the same form, but they have the same function—
that of specifying the dass of men referred to. Their gram-
matical forms (vocabulary permitting) are interchangeable:
a defining adjective can always take the form of a relative
clause, and a defining relative clause can often take the form
of an adjective: 'inexperienced men, and who have no ambition*.
'Unambitious' is therefore the true grammatical equivalent of
'who have no ambition', and latent coordination between it and
a relative clause is admissible.

On the other hand, among things that have the same gram-
matical form, but different functions, are the defining and the
non-defining relative clause. A non-defining clause, we knows
can be removed without disturbing the truth of the predication;
it has therefore no essential function; it cannot therefore have
the same function as a defining clause, whose function we know
to be essential. It follows that open coordination is not ad-
missible between a defining and a non-defining clause; and,
generally, coordination, whether open or latent, is admissible
between two defining or two non-defining coordinates, but not
between a defining and a non-defining.

Our object, however, in pointing out what seems to be the
true principle of relative coordination is not by any means
to encourage the latent variety. It has seldom any advantage
over full coordination; it is perhaps more apt to lead to actual
blunders; it is usually awkward; and it does violence—needless
violence, as often as not—to a very widespread and not un-
reasonable prejudice. Many writers may be suspected of
using it, against their better judgement, merely for the purpose
of asserting a right; it is their natural protest against the whole-
sale condemnation of ignorant critics, who do not see that
latent coordination may be nothing worse than clumsy, and that
open coordination may be a gross blunder. For the benefit
of such critics it seems worth while to examine the correctness